Chief Justice upholds jail term for woman who lied about address to enrol daughter in popular primary school

She later sent an email about changing her address to her partner’s address, and the matter was flagged to the school management, which began investigating.

This was because the new address was outside the radius for priority admission, and the 30-month requirement to stay in the declared address had not been fulfilled.

The woman kept lying that she lived at the place and gave instructions to her tenants to say she stayed at the flat with her daughter.

On at least five occasions between August 2024 and October 2024, the woman lied so that her daughter would continue to be enrolled at the school.

As part of her plan to maintain the appearance of living at the address, the woman misreported her change of address to a registration officer.

She was unrepresented when she was sentenced to a week’s jail in November, despite the prosecution seeking only a fine.

ARGUMENTS

She hired a lawyer and appealed against the jail term on Wednesday, seeking a fine of S$9,100. Her lawyer, Mr Deepak Natverlal, argued that the lower court judge, District Judge Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz, had erred in multiple ways, including in not adopting the submissions by the prosecution.

Chief Justice Menon interjected multiple times during the defence lawyer’s arguments and pointed out that the arguments he was making were against what was written in the accepted statement of facts.

He said he was disappointed in how she was coming to court to distance herself from facts she had already pleaded guilty to.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Chong Kee En, in responding to the defence’s arguments, said it was not an excuse for the offender to say she did it for her child’s educational benefit.

He said parents may sometimes regard their children as extensions of themselves, so having her child go to a distinguished school was essentially a benefit to herself.

The Chief Justice ran through his reasoning in detail for why the threshold was crossed in both possible ways in order to justify a jail term.

In one line of reasoning, he said there were at least seven aggravating factors in this case, which include heavy premeditation, active and deliberate steps to bolster the deception, repeating of the lie five times, and the instigation of seven other people to further the lie.

While the woman is technically “untraced” in that she has no previous convictions, Chief Justice Menon said the reality was that this was a series of offences and the main reason she did not have past convictions was that she “hadn’t been caught”.

“The appellant did not help herself by seeking to distance herself from the agreed statement of facts,” he said, adding that this reflected “unwillingness to come to terms with her offending behaviour”.

He allowed her two weeks to settle her affairs before beginning her jail term.